Minor v Happersett on Minor's Citizenship

BFB
Posts: 5283
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:48 pm

Minor v Happersett on Minor's Citizenship

#26

Post by BFB » Mon Feb 06, 2012 1:35 pm

Ugh! Damn knees!

User avatar
everalm
Posts: 1885
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 9:45 am

Minor v Happersett on Minor's Citizenship

#27

Post by everalm » Mon Feb 06, 2012 1:40 pm

Krackenthorpe,The reason the guano insane Birfoon muppets, in their usual crack addled manner, try to use M v H is that in the decision, the court said that Minor was a citizen as she was born in the USA to citizen parents BUT that wasn't the only path the NBC status and there was no need for them to discuss citizenship further.In the mind of the mad this then became a case that majicurly defined NBC status, even when the most cursory glance by a schizophrenic rabid baboon would have it say "WTF, they crazy...!!!!!!"

krackenthorpe
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 12:40 pm

Minor v Happersett on Minor's Citizenship

#28

Post by krackenthorpe » Mon Feb 06, 2012 1:53 pm

Greetings, can you tell us why you included this photo?Just to show the delusions of some people

krackenthorpe
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 12:40 pm

Minor v Happersett on Minor's Citizenship

#29

Post by krackenthorpe » Mon Feb 06, 2012 1:56 pm

What do you think of it, krackenthorpe?So then, it's about the right to vote, not explicitly citizenship. But why do they use it? Is it because they are too dimwitted to know otherwise or is it they think that others are dimwitted enough to fall for it?

User avatar
listeme
Posts: 5417
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:09 am

Minor v Happersett on Minor's Citizenship

#30

Post by listeme » Mon Feb 06, 2012 2:11 pm

What do you think of it, krackenthorpe?So then, it's about the right to vote, not explicitly citizenship. But why do they use it? Is it because they are too dimwitted to know otherwise or is it they think that others are dimwitted enough to fall for it?In my opinion, some of the birthers are in the first camp and the rest are in the second. I can't decide which is the larger camp :lol:
We're used to being told it's our fault that men don't listen to us.

User avatar
Tomtech
Posts: 974
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 12:08 pm
Location: Betwixt the Big and Black Cypress Bayous

Minor v Happersett on Minor's Citizenship

#31

Post by Tomtech » Mon Feb 06, 2012 4:08 pm

What do you think of it, krackenthorpe?So then, it's about the right to vote, not explicitly citizenship. But why do they use it? Is it because they are too dimwitted to know otherwise or is it they think that others are dimwitted enough to fall for it?In my opinion, some of the birthers are in the first camp and the rest are in the second. I can't decide which is the larger camp :lol:The leaders are purposely deceitful and the rabble is too illiterate to read an entire paragraph. The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to certain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last, they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact, the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.U.S. vs Wong, Kim Ark resolved those doubts!

Post Reply

Return to “Legal Claims by Birthers”